HomeMy WebLinkAbout01. 16-545
OCTOBER 25, 2016 DECEMBER 13, 2016 16-492 16-516 16-545 ORDINANCE
FIRST READING
NOVEMBER 9, 2016
SECOND READING
(CARRIED 7-0 LOST_______LAID OVER_______WITHDRAWN_______)
PURPOSE: REPEAL AND RECREATE CHAPTER 30 ZONING ORDINANCE
AND ZONING MAP EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2017 (THIS
UPDATE REPLACES THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE
AND MAP ADOPTED IN 1997)
INITIATED BY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved
A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH REPEALING AND
RECREATING CHAPTER 30 OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
The Common Council of the City of Oshkosh do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 30 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to the
Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map is repealed and recreated to read as follows:
(on file at the City Clerk’s Office)
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication, effective January 1, 2017.
SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh
enacted Ordinance #16-516 REPEAL AND RECREATE CHAPTER 30 ZONING
ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2017 (THIS UPDATE
REPLACES THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP ADOPTED IN 1997) on
December 13, 2016. The Ordinance repeals and recreates Chapter 30 of the Oshkosh
Municipal Code pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance effective January 1, 2017. The full
text of the Ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Ave.
and on the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us. Clerk's phone: (920) 236-5011.
Exhibit A
Recommended Ordinance revisions
Ordinance Revision # 1
• Page 42 Section 30-38(B) add following provision (9) to create
o 30-38(B)(9) Existing conforming two family uses on existing lots of record with 60
feet or more of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area.
Ordinance Revision # 2
• Page 42 Section 30-38(C) add following provision (10) to create
o 30-38(C)(10) Existing legal nonconforming two family uses on lots of record with
less than 60 feet of lot width and 7,200 square feet of Iot area.
Ordinance Revision # 3
• Page 45 Section 30-39(B) add following provision (9) to create
o 30-39(B)(9) Existing conforming two family uses on existing lots of record with 60
feet or more of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area.
Ordinance Revision # 4
• Page 45 Section 30-39(C) add following provision (10) to create
o 30-39(C)(10) Existing legal nonconforming two family uses on lots of record with
less than 60 feet of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area.
Ordinance Revision # 5
• Page 488 Figure 30-360 Row 3 Conditional Use Permit revise Plan Commission column
to read
o RE
Ordinance Revision # 6
• Page 488 Figure 30-360 Row 3 Conditional Use Permit revise Common Council column
to read
o RE, A
Ordinance Revision # 7
• Page 488 Figure 30-360 Row 8 Group & Large Development revise Plan Commission
column to read
o RE
Ordinance Revision # 8
• Page 488 Figure 30-360 Row 8 Group & Large Development revise Common Council
column to read
o RE, A
Ordinance Revision # 9
• Page 500 Section 30-382(H)(2) revise to read:
o Section 30-382(H)(2) The Plan Commission may take action on the application at
the time of its initial meeting or may continue the proceedings. The Plan
Commission may recommend the conditional use with modifications and/or
conditions or may recommend denial of the proposed conditional use. Said
action shall be followed by a written report which may include a formal finding
of facts developed and approved by the Plan Commission concerning the
request. Said report shall be forwarded to the Common Council for its review
and action on the proposed conditional use.
Ordinance Revision # 10
• Page 501 Section 30-382(H)(3) revise to read:
o Section 30-382(H)(3) If the Plan Commission wishes to recommend significant
changes in the proposed conditional use, then the procedure set forth in Section
62.23(7)(d) of the Wisconsin Statutes shall be followed prior to Plan Commission
action.
Ordinance Revision # 11
• Page 501 Section 30-382 (I) eliminate entire paragraph.
Ordinance Revision # 12
• Page 501 Section 30-382(J) eliminate entire paragraph.
Ordinance Revision # 13
• Page 502 Section 30-382(K) eliminate paragraphs (1)(2)(3)&(4).
Ordinance Revision # 14
0 Page 502 Section 30-382(K)(6)(1) revise to read:
o 30-382(K)(6)(1) Within 60 days after the filing of an application, the Common
Council shall make its findings and take final action (by resolution). The
Common Council may request further information and/or additional reports
from the Plan Commission, Director of Community Development (or designee),
the applicant, and/or any other entity as it deems reasonable.
Ordinance Revision # 15
• Page 502 Section 30-382 (K)(7) revise to read:
o 30-382(K)(8) Limited Effect of Approval. A ruling by the Common Council
finding a particular land use to be conditionally permitted in a specified zoning
district shall be deemed to authorize only at that particular use at that particular
location for the period of time for which the ruling was issued. The ruling shall
not be deemed to authorize any allegedly similar use for which a separate ruling
has not been issued. A favorable ruling shall automatically expire and cease to be
of any force or effect if the particular use for which it was issued shall, for any
reason, be discontinued for a period of 365 consecutive days or more.
Ordinance Revision # 16
• Page 503 Section 30-382(K)(8)(1)& (2) revise to read:
o 30-382(K)(8) Limited Effect of Approval. A ruling by the Common Council
finding a particular land use to be conditionally permitted in a specified zoning
district shall be deemed to authorize only at that particular use at that particular
location for the period of time for which the ruling was issued. The ruling shall
not be deemed to authorize any allegedly similar use for which a separate ruling
has not been issued. A favorable ruling shall automatically expire and cease to be
of any force or effect if the particular use for which it was issued shall, for any
reason, be discontinued for a period of 365 consecutive days or more.
Ordinance Revision # 17
• Page 514 Figure 30-386 Process for Special Area Design Review add additional road to
include "Review and Action by Common Council' so table will read:
o Figure 30-386: 7. Review and Action by Common Council No Maybe Yes
Ordinance Revision # 18
0 Page 516 30-386(B)(3) revise to read:
o 30-386(B)(3) Project Review. Applications which involve modification to the
physical configuration of a property (such as the erection of a new building, the
demolition of an existing building) are subject to Project Review by the Director
of Community Development, or designee, the Plan Commission and Common
Council. The Director of Community Development, or designee, shall serve as
the liaison between the applicant and the Plan Commission in facilitating the
thorough and expedient review of an application, and shall ensure that the
technical and procedural requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met. The
Plan Commission shall review and recommend to the Common Council on
aesthetics, building design, and site design, and shall focus its review on the
application's compliance with sound aesthetic, land use, site design and
economic development practices. In part, this effort shall be guided by the
Comprehensive Plan and other area plans.
Ordinance Revision # 19
• Page 519 Figure 30-387 revise boxes 4 and 5 to read:
o General Development Plan Plan Commission &Common Council Review
o Specific Implementation Plan Plan Commission & Common Council Review
Ordinance Revision # 20
• Page 526 30-387(C)(6) revise to read:
0 30-387(C)(6) Criteria for Approval. In its review and recommendation to the
Common Council on an application for a Planned Development District, the Plan
Commission shall make findings with respect to the following criteria:
EXHIBIT B
Revisions recommended for approval by Plan Commission at its November 15, 2016 Meeting:
A - Poberezny Road & W. Ripple Avenue from
SMU-PD Suburban Mixed Use with Planned
Development Overlay to UI -PD Urban
Industrial with Planned Development
Overlay:
This 80 acre area was changed from SMU-PD
Suburban Mixed Use with Planned
Development Overlay to UI -PD Urban
Industrial with Planned Development Overlay
to mirror the existing M-1 Light Industrial
District with Planned Development Overlay
and to be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
B - Algoma Boulevard & Wisconsin Street
Area from TR -10 Two Flat Residential to MR -
36 Multi -Family Residential:
This 11.37 acre area was changed from TR -10
Two Flat Residential -10 to MR -36 Multi -
Family Residential - 36 to better reflect the
existing residential land uses and mirror the
current R-5 Multiple Dwelling District.
A
A - Poberezny Road & W. Ripple Avenue from
SMU-PD Suburban Mixed Use with Planned
Development Overlay to UI -PD Urban
Industrial with Planned Development
Overlay:
This 80 acre area was changed from SMU-PD
Suburban Mixed Use with Planned
Development Overlay to UI -PD Urban
Industrial with Planned Development Overlay
to mirror the existing M-1 Light Industrial
District with Planned Development Overlay
and to be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
B - Algoma Boulevard & Wisconsin Street
Area from TR -10 Two Flat Residential to MR -
36 Multi -Family Residential:
This 11.37 acre area was changed from TR -10
Two Flat Residential -10 to MR -36 Multi -
Family Residential - 36 to better reflect the
existing residential land uses and mirror the
current R-5 Multiple Dwelling District.
C - New Water Tower Site from UMU Urban
Mixed Use to I -PD Institutional with a Planned
Development Overlay:
This 0.77 acre area was changed from UMU-PD
Urban Mixed Use with Planned Development
Overlay to Institutional with Planned
Development Overlay due to a recent land
division for construction of the new water tower
within the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue
Redevelopment Area. The Institutional Zone
District is intended for properties used for
governmental buildings and structures as well
as other exempt entities.
D - North Main Street Storm Sewer Basin Area
from MR -20 Multi -Family Residential - 20 to I
Institutional:
This 0.46 acre area was changed from MR -20
Multi -Family Residential - 20 to Institutional due
to a recent land division for construction of a
storm sewer connection between recently
constructed City storm water detention basins.
The Institutional Zone District is intended for
properties used for governmental buildings and
structures as well as other exempt entities.
AVE
IPO
Changed from
CtoI
JOHN
s _6 Io D.
W KAVA'
Q o
KILPS AVE
Fi n F-1
P,
I CFL BRATION WAY
Changed from
CtoI
SOF V ERN AVE
v �
SCHAICK AVE
HNDRERGH AVE J -
z _
E - UWO Parking Lot — Scott Avenue from C
Campus to I Institutional:
This 0.61 acre site was changed from C Campus
to I Institutional District. This area was missed
during mapping review as the C District was
removed from the final version of the proposed
ordinance text. The area is used for a parking lot
for the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and the
Institutional Zoning is the most appropriate
district as it matches the rest of the university
campus area. The Institutional Zone District is
intended for properties used for governmental
buildings and structures as well as other exempt
entities.
F - Vacated Knapp Street — EAA from C
Campus to I Institutional:
This 0.60 acre site was changed from C Campus
to I Institutional District. This area was missed
during mapping review as the C District was
removed from the final version of the proposed
ordinance text. The undeveloped land is part of
vacated Knapp Street and is now owned by the
Experimental Aircraft Association. The
Institutional Zone District is intended for
properties used for governmental buildings and
structures as well as other exempt entities.
�T
CT
Changed from
R-1 to SR-5-LRO
CT
CT
SR•S•LRO
G - 225 Idaho Street from NMU
Neighborhood Mixed Use to SR -5 Single
Family Residential — 5:
This 0.54 acre site was changed from NMU
Neighborhood Mixed Use to SR -5 Single
Family Residential — 5. This request was made
by the property owner who approached the
City to rezone the property from its current C-2
General Commercial Zone District. The
property contains a single family home, a
prohibited use in the C-2 District. The formerly
proposed NMU District would have allowed
the single family use by -right, however, the
property is currently on the market and the
owner had fears that a potential buyer would
have difficulty securing finatuing with the
NMU designation.
H — 2508 Shorewood Drive from R-1 Single
Family Residence to SR-5-LRO Single Family
Residential — 5 with Lakefront Residential
Overlay:
This 0.25 acre property was changed from R-1
Single Family Residence District to SR-5-LRO
Single Family Residential — 5 with Lakefront
Residential Overlay District due to its recent
armexation occurring after the draft zoning
map was created.
MR -7
IPD
VERSIIY 1RANs oN-.
OVF1t1AY . .
IPD
S�
Changed from
RMU-RFO to
UI•RFO
UI•RFO
ps Ul
RIVWRO .
OVc
`RMU
RMU-PD
\ MU-PD-RFO
� �. •{•' UNIVERSITY TRA NSRION .
,:•.•:. '� OVERLAY
qQ
I
Changed from r
Urban Mxed Use to Lmu.PD'
Urban Industrial
I
IVERFRON
OVERLAY
\ �Uh1lI
I — 505 Marion Road (Mercury Marine) from
RMU-RFO Riverfront Mixed -Use with
Riverfront Overlay to UI-RFO Urban
Industrial District with Riverfront Overlay:
This 3.43 acre site was changed from RMU-
RFO Riverfront Mixed -Use with Riverfront
Overlay to UI-RFO Urban Industrial District
with Riverfront Overlay which better suits the
property's existing use and mirrors the
property's current M-2 Central Industrial
District Zoning.
J — 474 Marion Road (Lamico) from UMU
Urban Mixed -Use to UI Urban Industrial:
This 5.55 acre site was changed from UMU
Urban Mixed -Use to UI Urban Industrial
District which better suits the property's
industrial development and mirrors the
property's current M-2 Central Industrial
District Zoning.
SMU
K —1005 High Avenue (Axletech
International) from RMU-RFO Riverfront
Mixed -Use with Riverfront Overlay to UI-
RFO Urban Industrial District with
Riverfront Overlay:
This 33.43 acre site was changed from RMU-
RFO Riverfront Mixed -Use with Riverfront
Overlay to UI-RFO Urban Industrial District
with Riverfront Overlay which better suits the
property's current use and mirrors the
property's current M-2 Central Industrial
District Zoning.
L —112 Viola Avenue (Oaklawn School) from
SMU Suburban Mixed -Use to I -PD
Institutional with a Planned
Development Overlay:
This 1.30 acre site was changed from SMU
Suburban Mixed -Use to I Institutional with a
Planned Development Overlay due to the
Oshkosh Area School District's recent
acquisition of the property. The change
matches the rest of the Oaklawn property and
the Institutional District is intended for
properties used for governmental buildings
and structures as well as other exempt entities.
i
K —1005 High Avenue (Axletech
International) from RMU-RFO Riverfront
Mixed -Use with Riverfront Overlay to UI-
RFO Urban Industrial District with
Riverfront Overlay:
This 33.43 acre site was changed from RMU-
RFO Riverfront Mixed -Use with Riverfront
Overlay to UI-RFO Urban Industrial District
with Riverfront Overlay which better suits the
property's current use and mirrors the
property's current M-2 Central Industrial
District Zoning.
L —112 Viola Avenue (Oaklawn School) from
SMU Suburban Mixed -Use to I -PD
Institutional with a Planned
Development Overlay:
This 1.30 acre site was changed from SMU
Suburban Mixed -Use to I Institutional with a
Planned Development Overlay due to the
Oshkosh Area School District's recent
acquisition of the property. The change
matches the rest of the Oaklawn property and
the Institutional District is intended for
properties used for governmental buildings
and structures as well as other exempt entities.
M - 955 Linden Oaks Drive from R-1 Single
Family Residence District to SR -5 Single
Family Residential - 5:
This 1.31 acre property was changed from R-1
Single Family Residence District to SR -5 Single
Family Residential - 5. The property
petitioned for a 5 -year delayed voluntary
attachment from the Town of Algoma in 2011.
The five-year delay expires on December 13,
2016, after which the property will officially
attached to the City.
Revisions recommended for approval by Plan Commission at its December 6, 2016 Meeting:
M -1212 S. Main Street (Buckstaff Site) from
HI Heavy Industrial to CMU -PD Central
Mixed Use with a Planned Development
Overlay:
This 8.05 site was originally changed from HI
Heavy Industrial to UMU-PD Urban Mixed
Use with a Planned Development Overlay.
Concerns were raised by Plan Commission
that a change from an Industrial District to a
Commercial District would negatively impact
existing industrial uses north and south of the
site. Staff evaluated this concern and
determined that the properties/zone district
boundaries are separated by public right-of-
way, therefore the existing industrial uses will
not be affected due to this separation. In
addition, staff is of the opinion the best future use for the site and general area east of S. Main
Street is a mix of commercial and/or higher -density residential developments.
Staff also reevaluated if the proposed UMU Urban Mixed Use District was the most appropriate
zone district for these properties. The west side of the S. Main Street corridor is proposed to be
zoned CMU -PD, Central Mixed Use with a Planned Development Overlay. Staff feels
expanding the CMU -PD District onto the Buckstaff properties is logical, avoids a "spot zone"
and offers benefits such as smaller setbacks and greater impervious coverage versus the UMU
district. This allows for greater design potential for when the site is redeveloped. Therefore,
staff is recommending classifying this site with a CMU -PD District.
N — E. Packer Avenue & Harrison Street from
HI Heavy Industrial to UI Urban Industrial:
This 6.35 acre site was changed from HI Heavy
Industrial to UI Urban Industrial which better
suits the smaller parcel sizes and less -intensive
uses. Plan Commission asked staff if the site
was better suited for the originally proposed
HI District.
Staff examined the existing land uses and
parcel anatomy of the six affected parcels (see
table) and found that one existing use and one
proposed use are prohibited in the HI District.
Also, two different parcels do not meet
minimum parcel standards in regard to area (1
acre). The proposed UI District allows all of
the existing and proposed uses by -right, and
all of the parcels meet minimum size
standards. Therefore, staff is recommending the originally proposed change to UI Urban
Industrial District.
O — W. 20th Ave to W. 23rd Ave. from
Minnesota Street to Montana Street from HI
Heavy Industrial to UI Urban Industrial:
This 8.89 acre area was changed from HI
Heavy Industrial to UI Urban Industrial which
better suits the smaller parcel sizes and less -
intensive uses.
P — Northeast corner of Harrison Street and E.
Custer Avenue from UMU Urban Mixed -Use
to UMU-PD Urban Mixed-use with a Planned
Development Overlay:
This 0.30 acre site was changed from UMU
Urban Mixed -Use to UMU-PD Urban Mixed-
use with a Planned Development Overlay.
This change was requested by the Housing
Authority of the City of Oshkosh as part of
their redevelopment plans for the Waite Grass
Carpet Company property. The addition of
the PD Overlay matches the rest of the
Housing Authority's property.
D
LEE:
of
fl
1.
N Igor
l,,,
An
I
Legend f
Historic Districts�Jj
DistrictI
z Wg8Nlfl6f
N r t�
yJ I
�L
. ,.,1
Olrvin9-Church
',o
2016 Non -Owner Occupied
2016 Omar Occupied - In
z - -
Ir rlii J.G iie r_u dl:l:ari. :l l:lrl_1 :lu;�uu
:/r19u1 ]heel 5- 0- :iwil
A 1 rn= 109011
Rinfng Dale 12.6'207G
FYclvra7 tr/Crty CfCkY}ash, V11
Oshkosh
it a Ccr Gla n,„a a�,i 1'e L� •s c:,n cw
rte, a .. ve arvo•me:ar.a:.s aa::, olr,c.,�.n ,s,r ss r,e e:,c�
t:;,ra i:m a a<.ay a sw ne» mageJaaas.s ae ria nsa tr
�tme:m pn�saa a _ s.hani a .{Nessa kr ky
University Transition Overlay (UTO)
District
The Plan Commission evaluated 10
different options from the original
UTO boundary. This Option (Option
9) generally pulls the eastern boundary
back to Wright Street in addition to
pulling it back to Vine Street on the
north and carving out the
Irving/Church Historic district on the
south. This removes 257 properties
(181 Rental, 76 Owner -Occupied) from
the original boundary. Plan
Commission determined this option
best reflects the goals set forth by the
UTO to allow higher population
densities within this area.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services
DATE: December 8, 2016
SUBJECT: Repeal and Recreate Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Effective January 1,
2017 (This replaces the Existing Zoning Ordinance and Map Adopted in 1997)
BACKGROUND
As Council is aware staff has been engaged in a multiyear rewrite of the City's 1997 Zoning Ordinance
and map that has culminated with Draft #6 being recommended by the Plan Commission at its October
4th meeting. During Council consideration of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance at its November
8th meeting some concerns were raised about some of the proposed ordinance revisions and map and
Council referred those concerns back to the Plan Commission for further review. Since that time the
Plan Commission has discussed and recommended the various Zoning Ordinance and Map revisions
at its November 15th and December 6th meetings.
Overall the new proposed Zoning Ordinance is a good attempt at implementing community desires
with good planning practice while also trying to balance property right interests. The document before
Council is one that is the product of consensus and deliberation by the stakeholder group and the Plan
Commission. Specifically, staff has addressed the zoning issues brought up by the Jackson Street
Neighborhood Association, and has included language to continue giving Council final approval of
Conditional Use Permits.
Staff has prepared three documents discussing the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and
Map. Attachment A discusses text revisions to the Zoning Ordinance document. Exhibit A shows the
exact ordinance language revisions that are being proposed to be incorporated into the final draft
Zoning Ordinance. Exhibit B discusses the proposed changes to the Zoning Map. Staff is requesting
that Council approve the revisions that will then be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance and
Zoning Map that will be effective January 1, 2017.
ANALYSIS
The City's current 1997 Zoning Ordinance is outdated and no longer reflects overall community desires
(it actually reflects recommendations of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan) and market realities (e.g.
promotion of mixed-use districts, University Transition Overlay, etc.). As preferences in the
community have changed, as is reflected in numerous City Strategic Plan
City Hall, 215 Church Avenue P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 920.236.5002 http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us
documents (i.e. Comprehensive Plan (2005), the Zoning Ordinance needs to evolve to
implement those priorities. New things such as promoting mixed-use districts by creating 5
different mixed-use zoning districts that replace existing commercial zoning (e.g. C-1, C-2, C-3)
or taking the architectural requirements found in only two existing districts (e.g. Highway 41
Corridor Overlay and the Downtown Overlay) and incorporating those in all the mixed-use
commercial and industrial districts that will impact the aesthetic look of development in the
community. Other provisions such as revising the sign code to meet the most recent Supreme
Court decision Reed v. Gilbert, AZ have been added to mainstream the code.
Probably one of the most important features of the new Ordinance is how it tries to promote
neighborhood stabilization as evidenced in the following provisions:
• Creation of a "roommate living arrangement" land use which seeks to regulate that
land use in single and two family districts.
• Reducing the number of unrelated individuals that can reside in a dwelling unit
from 4 to 3 individuals and developing a "functional family" definition to
accommodate nontraditional families.
• Creation of a University Transition Overlay district to try and promote student
density in those impacted neighborhoods close in to the University.
The Zoning Ordinance encompasses 11 articles of Chapter 30 making up the City's core land-
use/zoning regulations:
• Article I: Introductions and Definitions
• Article lI: Establishment of Zoning District (all base zoning districts)
• Article III: Land Use Regulations (requirements specific to land use)
• Article IV: Bulk Regulations (setback and height regulations)
• Article V: Nonconforming Situations (uses, lots and structures that don't meet code)
• Article VI: Overlay Zoning Districts (districts superimposed over certain areas)
• Article VII: Performance Standards (access, parking, fencing, etc.)
• Article VIII: Exterior Building Design Standards (minimum architectural standards)
• Article IX: Landscaping Requirements
• Article X: Signage
• Article XI: Administration and Procedures
Current chapters of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Official Map, Subdivisions, and
Historic Preservation were not part of the update task and will be brought through and
included with the new Zoning Ordinance in their current form with no changes other than
numbering to be consistent with the new Zoning Ordinance. Floodplain, Airport, and
Traditional Neighborhood Development District regulations have been included in the draft
Zoning Ordinance as overlay districts with their current Zoning Ordinance language and no
changes being made.
The new Zoning Ordinance looks a bit different from the existing Ordinance but functions in
similar ways as the ultimate land use control policy for the City. Notable changes include:
• An expanded definitions section to include more uses including a "Functional family"
definition to address more nontraditional living arrangements;
• There are more zoning districts (24 vs. 18).
• Two zoning districts have been eliminated (Highway 41 and Downtown) in favor of
incorporating many of those standards into the Exterior Building Design Standards
chapter (Article VIII).
• A new smaller single family residential district (SR -9) has.been added to accommodate
older platted central city lots that are generally 50 feet in width or less.
• The Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) which generally replaces the existing C-2
General Commercial District now permits residential uses.
• A University Transition Overlay Zone (UT -0) has been added to address the
neighborhoods impacted by student housing by promoting student density in that area.
• Family has been defined to include a maximum of 3 unrelated individuals in an effort to
preserve the integrity of single family neighborhoods.
• Signage area has been significantly reduced but is consistent with other Fox Valley
community signage ordinances
• Providing blanket conforming status for all legal nonconforming structures and lots
until adjusted/changed.
• Requires "good side" of fences to face the exterior of the property.
• Establishes an opacity requirement for buffer yards.
• There are more tables and diagrams for ease of use.
• Landscaping has been changed to include a point system that also includes foundation
plantings.
While the changes in the new code are too numerous to individually discuss within the body of
this memo, as it is essentially a brand new code, staff has prepared a "Top 10" list of code
changes or new provisions that impact the following categories:
• Appearance and Aesthetics
• Neighborhoods
• Economic Development
These modifications are listed by category, below:
APPEARANCE and AESTHETICS
1. Require group (3+ buildings) and large developments (building 50,000 sf+) to be publicly
reviewed with conditional use approval ensuring design, layout, appearance and
function are appropriate and consistent with area and community character/desire.
2. Establish 'Buffer yards" to reduce visual, noise and other interaction between
incompatible or conflicting land uses. This will help to screen and "beautify" the
appearance of outdoor uses, parking lots, storage areas, mechanical equipment, etc. from
adjoining uses.
3. Better regulation on outdoor sales, display and storage uses to minimize the visual and
aesthetic effect of items stored permanently outside. This includes expansion of exterior
storage and screening standards to better camouflage such items as outdoor storage,
refuse and mechanical equipment.
4. Provide the ability to decrease or increase setbacks to essentially match and be
compatible with existing neighboring development through a line-up provision/setback
averaging, buffer yards, and small lot exceptions.
5. Place building material limitations on fencing as well as requiring the "good side" to
face outwards. This will improve the appearance of commercial and residential areas by
prohibiting unsightly fence types.
6. Add regulations for vacant structures and sites requiring maintenance reviews and
providing guidelines for actions if not maintained properly. This acts to limit unsightly
conditions and blight associated with long-term vacancies and abandoned sites.
7. Adjust and establish building design standards for all building types including single &
two-family, multiple family, commercial and industrial. This includes standards for
building character, materials, heights, remodeling, additions, etc. to ensure a minimum
or base benchmark for architectural quality for the community based on location and
use.
8. Establish standards for development in what is felt to be "special areas" and require
administrative or public project, design alteration and renovation review for
development or redevelopment along the riverfront (RF -0) and central business district
(CMU).
9. Establish a point -based system to administer the landscape code that includes specific
landscape minimums and standards for building foundations, paved areas, street
frontages, general yard areas, and buffer yards. Add credit for retention of "old
growth" plants, native vegetation and material associated with rain gardens and
bioswales.
10. Modify the signage regulations to meet the recent US Supreme Court ruling in the Reed
v. Gilbert, Az case. This separated signage into specific categories (permanent business
signs, temporary business signs, permanent miscellaneous signs, yard signs and
prohibited signs) and types (freestanding, building, notice, identification, electronic,
etc.). It also reduced sign sizes and coordinated allowable sign types/regulations to the
area/zoning district/use of properties, and will require removal or face replacement for
uses no longer active on-site.
NEIGHBORHOODS
Redefined "Family" reducing the number of unrelated individuals and allowing
nontraditional "Functional Families" lowering number of unrelated individuals to 3
persons (from 4) thereby lowering density and possible conversions of single-family
homes to multi -tenant situations with a goal of preserving the integrity of single family
neighborhoods.
2. Create a new Roommate Residential Land -Use allowing 4-5 unrelated individuals to
occupy a residence typically only through public review to determine feasibility and
address potential negative impacts such as parking and storage on neighbors and
neighborhoods via conditional use permits.
3. Establish a clearly defined University Transition Overlay District (UT -0) allowing
Roommate Residential Uses by -right, thereby helping to direct student housing to those
areas near campus where it already exists or where it is most suitable.
4. Separate residential zoning districts into more representative categories and change
dimensional regulations (lot size, setbacks, coverage, etc.) to be reflective of the character
of existing make-up of neighborhoods generally based on time of their creation (older
small lots in dense neighborhoods through more sparsely populated large lot suburban
style neighborhoods).
5. Separate and differentiate two-family districts into two districts: 1. Side-by-side Duplex
Residential (DR -6) and 2. Upper -lower Two Flat Residential (TR -10). This will address
the character and design differences between "historical" center city two-family
site/building design and more "contemporary" two family site/building designs.
6. Adjust the multiple family districts to better reflect desired densities that can be used for
specific areas (high densities downtown/near downtown and lower densities in
suburban areas) and include a specific multiple family category differentiating
townhouses from apartment multiplexes as one type may be more appropriate in more
single or two family areas than the other.
7. Establish a Mobile Home District (MH -6) to codify regulation related to existing mobile
home parks in the city as well as facilitate creation of new mobile home subdivisions (on
own lots accessed by public streets) and mobile home parks (on a common lot with
private road access).
8. Establish an Institutional District (I) to facilitate and regulate typical institutional uses
located within and near residential neighborhoods such as schools, churches, parks and
other government uses thereby mitigating potential conflicting desires such as increased
signage, parking lots, etc.
9. Adjust land uses into principal permitted by -right uses, principal conditional uses,
principal accessory uses, and conditional assessory uses as well as establishing
temporary uses. This allows typical uses to be allowed without excessive review but
provides a mechanism for more detailed review and regulation of items that may have a
negative impact on a neighborhood.
10. Allow In -Family Suites in dwelling units to provide the ability of a homeowner to have
multi -generational housing options akin to a separate unit; but conditioned on family
status, building/site design, and interconnections between units.
11. Create regulations for "vacation rentals" where owner -occupied single and two-family
homes are rented out on a temporary and short term basis. This provides a modicum of
protection to neighbors of such rentals including limiting the times of use, occupancy in
addition to requiring suitable parking.
12. Expand the area and adjust the regulation of residential properties located on the
lakeshore of Lake Winnebago to reflect the desire to orient the home to the shore yard
rather than the street yard and provide allowance for garages in the street yards and on
garage lots across the street.
13. Enhance "buffer yard" regulations to reduce visual, noise and other interaction between
incompatible or conflicting land uses such as a commercial use that abuts a residential
neighborhood. Buffer yards will now also include an opacity requirement.
14. Adjust sign regulations to reflect and protect neighborhood character and curb appeal
by limiting the types and sizes of signs within residential areas. This modification is
designed to control the impact of permanent "for rent" and other quasi -commercial
signage in residential areas.
15. Require owners/developers to hold a public meeting with adjoining property owners
and neighbors for most items that require public review through Plan Commission or
Council approval. The purpose of this modification is to allow for the item to be
introduced as a concept as well as to provide the developer and staff the opportunity to
understand and address community driven concerns prior to formal public review and
action.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1. Redefine commercial districts into mixed-use districts providing the ability to include
multiple family uses within them, typically as conditional uses. This provides a high
level of flexibility for commercial property owners/developers and aligns the code to a
modern and popular trend for mixed use commercial areas. This is also advantageous
as it allows multiple levels of income streams for a property while helping to create
robust commercial areas with supportive residential activity.
2. Separate commercial zoning districts into more representative categories and changed
use and dimensional regulations (uses, lot size, setbacks, coverage, etc.) to reflect
character of existing commercial areas. Examples include; Neighborhood business nodes
(NMU) that may have old commercial buildings within residential areas; Older
commercial corridors from 1950-1980 such as Knapp & Ohio Streets (UMU) that
developed with a variety of business types and styles over time; Suburban style
commercial such as the frontage roads (SMU) where big box and strip centers are
prevalent; Historic central business district/Main and Oregon Streets (CMU) that reflect
multiple story structures built at the street line with little or no parking provided; New
riverfront district (RMU) focusing on the highest value properties in the city; and New
business park (BP) reflecting the trends and design considerations of higher quality
business, light industrial and office parks.
3. Expand temporary commercial uses for businesses allowing short term storage, sales
and assembly at properties not typically containing such uses but are nonetheless
important to their operation and success.
4. Provide a blanket conforming status for all legal nonconforming structures and lots until
they are adjusted/changed. This provides assurance that the investment in the
nonconformity will not be wasted effort.
5. Establish a Campus Overlay District to recognize and help facilitate development and
expansion of large-scale group development settings such as governmental, office,
medical and education facility campuses. This will allow planned, logical growth that
has been introduced to the public and approved by the Council without the need for
incremental review and approval.
6. Add a University Transition Overlay District to allow higher density housing and group
living (roommate residential, fraternities/sororities, vacation rentals, bed & breakfasts).
7. Eliminate the ability of owners of vacant buildings to place reuse limitations/restrictions
on property which negatively affects their marketability and can have the effect of
keeping them unoccupied for large amounts of time.
8. Expand allowable sign types for business uses and provide flexibility in height, size and
location including modern regulation for electronic message boards,
board/banners/temp. "waving" signs.
9. Allow applicants for Planned Developments to only create and submit a general
development plan for conceptual approval. This will save the developer and staff, the
time and expense associated with specific implementation plan item creation especially
when considering the review of full engineering work, architectural plans, landscape
designs, utility plans, etc.
ZONING MAP
As part of the reworking of the zoning ordinance a new zoning map also needs to be adopted to
implement the new Zoning Ordinance. The proposed zoning map is being included at the end
of the draft Zoning Ordinance document.
The new zoning map contains 24 different zoning districts with one district (Planned
Development, PD) carrying over from the existing ordinance into the new ordinance. All the
areas currently zoned with a PD overlay will continue to be zoned with a PD on the proposed
new map. The broad zoning classifications are as follows:
• Rural District
• Residential Districts
• Institutional District
• Mixed -Use Districts
• Business Park
• Industrial Districts
• Overlay Districts
Notable changes to the zoning map include:
• 4 different single family zoning districts generally reflecting the density of development;
• 2 different two family districts;
• A University Transition Overlay (UTO) District
• A mobile home district (MH -9);
• An Institutional district;
• Business Park district;
• Establishment of 5 mixed use districts.
In crafting the map staff attempted to match the existing land use to the appropriate zoning
district while also keeping in mind the Comprehensive Plan land use recommendation for an
area. Any use made nonconforming by the mapping may seek a conditional use permit to
make that use conforming within that district.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated impact on City service provisions due to adopting a new Zoning
Ordinance and Map.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting 3 actions relating to repealing and creating the new Zoning Ordinance to
include the revisions identified in Exhibits A and B.
Action # 1 Staff is requesting Council to approve recommended revisions to the text of the
Zoning Ordinance identified as Exhibit A.
Action # 2 Staff is requesting Council to approve recommended revisions to the Zoning
Ordinance map identified as Exhibit B.
Action # 3 Repeal and Recreate revised Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map
Effective January 1, 2017
Respectfully Submitted,
01�
Darryn Burich
Director of Planning Services
Approved,
Mark Rohloff
City Manager
Zoning Ordinance Update Attachment A
Zoning Ordinance Text Changes
Changes to Permitted Uses in SR -5 and SR -9 Zoning District
The SR -5 and SR -9 zoning districts are generally replacing the R-2 zoning district in central city
neighborhoods. These areas while predominantly being in single family usage do contain large
numbers of two family dwellings. Two family dwellings on lots of record with 60 feet or more
in width and 7,200 square feet in area are currently conforming uses in the R-2 zoning district.
Two family uses on lots of record with less than 60 feet of lot width and 7,200 square feet are
nonconforming uses. As a nonconforming use if that use is destroyed or removed, the lot then
can only be used for a single family use. Of concern is moving a number of currently
"conforming" two family uses to that of "nonconforming" status. Staff feels it is still in the best
interests of the community and for the stability of the single family neighborhood to implement
the zone change but wants to balance that by not creating a number of new nonconforming
uses. As such staff is proposing to add as a permitted use in the SR -5 and SR -9 zoning districts
existing two family uses on existing lots of record with 60 or more feet in width and 7,200
square feet of lot area.
In order to deal with the existing nonconforming uses, staff is requesting to permit those
through conditional use permit and thus each situation could be reviewed on a case by case
basis to determine whether the use is reasonable for the site.
Suggested Zoning Ordinance Text Revisions
Single Family Residential SR -5
Page 42
Section 30-38 (B) (9)
Add the following language under Principal Uses Permitted by Right:
(9) Existing conforming two family uses on existing lots of record with 60 feet or
more of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area.
Section 30-38 (C)(10)
Add the following language under Principal Uses Permitted as Conditional Use:
(10) Existing legal nonconforming two family uses on lots of record with less
than 60 feet of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area.
Single Family Residential SR -9
Page 45
Section 30-39 (B) (9)
Add the following language under Principal Uses Permitted by Right:
(9) Existing conforming two family uses on existing lots of record with 60 feet or
more of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area.
Section 30-39 (C)(10)
Add the following language under Principal Uses Permitted as Conditional Use:
(10) Existing legal nonconforming two family uses on lots of record with less
than 60 feet of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area.
Administration and Procedures
With respect to limiting some items to just Plan Commission review and ending items at the
Council. Make the following revisions.
Page 488
Section 30-360 Review and Approval Required
Adjust Figure 30-360 on page 488
3rd row down on chart labeled "Conditional Use Permit" and remove "A" (A=Final
Action) from Plan Commission authority and remove "Appeal Only" under Common
Council and place "RE" (Review and Evaluate) and "A" Final Action
8th row down under "Group and Large Development" remove "A" from and remove
"A" (A=Final Action) from Plan Commission authority and remove "Appeal Only"
under Common Council and place "RE" (Review and Evaluate) and "A" Final Action.
Section 30-382 Conditional Use Permit Procedures
Pages 500-502
30-382 (H) Review and Action by the Plan Commission
Change the paragraph to remove final action from Plan Commission purview to read:
30-382 (H) (2) The Plan Commission may take final action M^ reset, gen) on the
application at the time of its initial meeting or may continue the proceedings. The Plan
Commission may recommend approve the conditional use with modifications and/or
conditions or may recommend denial of the proposed conditional use. Said #pal
action shall be followed by a written report which may include a formal finding of facts
f
developed and approved by the Plan Commission concerning the request. Said report
shall be forwarded to the Common Council for its review and action on the proposed
conditional use.
30-382 (H) (3) If the Plan Commission wishes to approve recommend significant
changes in the proposed conditional use.......
Delete entire 30-382 (I) Limited Effect of Approval and reconstitute under Common
Council Section.
Eliminate Sections 30-382 (J) Effects of Denial and (K) Appeals of a Plan Commission
Decision
30-382(K)(6)(1) Within 60 days after the f4ing of the appeal the Common Council shall
make its findings and take final action (by resolution).
30-382(K)(7) Effects of Denial.
Revise to remove "appeal" from paragraph and will read:
30-382(7) Effects of Denial. No application which has been denied (either wholly or in
part) shall be resubmitted for a period of 365 days from the date of said order of denial,
except on grounds of new evidence or material change of. circumstances.
Revise Section 30-382(K) (8)(1)& (2) to read:
30-382(K)(8) Limited Effect of Approval. A ruling by the Common Council
finding a particular land use to be conditionally permitted in a specified zoning
district shall be deemed to authorize only at that particular use at that particular
location for the period of time for which the ruling was issued. The ruling shall
not be deemed to authorize any allegedly similar use for which a separate ruling
has not been issued. A favorable ruling shall automatically expire and cease to be
of any force or effect if the particular use for which it was issued shall, for any
reason, be discontinued for a period of 365 consecutive days or more.
Section 30-386 Special Area Design Review
Page 514
Figure 30-386 Process for Special Area Design Review:
Add additional row No. 7. labled "Review and Action by Common Council" along with
No Maybe Yes in columns 2-4.
Page 516
Section 30-386 (B) (3) Project Review
End of first sentence add ....Plan Commission and Common Council.
The Plan Commission shall serve as the fina4 discretionary revi T body review and
recommend on aesthetics, building design......
Section 30-386 (B) (3) will then read as follows:
(3) Project Review. Applications which involve modification to the physical
configuration of a property (such as the erection of a new building, the
demolition of an existing building) are subject to Project Review by the Director
of Community Development, or designee, the Plan Commission and Common
Council. The Director of Community Development, or designee, shall serve as
the liaison between the applicant and the Plan Commission in facilitating the
thorough and expedient review of an application, and shall ensure that the
technical and procedural requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met. The
Plan Commission shall review and recommend to the Common Council on
aesthetics, building design, and site design, and shall focus its review on the
applications compliance with sound aesthetic, land use, site design and
economic development practices. In part, this effort shall be guided by the
Comprehensive Plan and other area plans.
Page 519
Figure 30-387 Procedure for Planned Development Review
5�1, box down change "City" to Common Council Review
6th box down under Specific Implementation Plan add Plan Commission and Common
Council Review
Page 526
Section 30-87 (C) (6) Criteria for Approval: In its review and aEtio recommendation to
the Common Council for a Planned Development District......
This section will now read:
30-387(C)(6) Criteria for Approval. In its review and recommendation to the Common
Council on an application for a Planned Development District, the Plan Commission
shall make findings with respect to the following criteria:
ITEM: UPDATE TO CITY OF OSHKOSH ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 30
AND ZONING MAP (MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES)
Plan Commission meeting of November 15, 2016.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2016, the City of Oshkosh Plan Commission reviewed and recommended
approval of a new draft zoning map coinciding with the update/rewrite of the 1997 Zoning
Ordinance. Since that time staff has identified additional mapping and/or ordinance language
changes based on feedback it has heard from the public or in the course of additional staff
reviews prior to adoption. Staff recommended that Council direct the changes back to the Plan
Commission for review prior to final adoption of the Ordinance and Map.
Eight modifications are being recommended to the draft map. Staff has also developed several
alternatives for the boundaries of the University Transition Overlay district based on concerns
being raised by the Historic Drive Neighborhood Association.
Staff has also identified miscellaneous changes to the text of the zoning ordinance relative to
permitted and conditional uses in the SR -5 and SR -9 zones which are currently areas that are
being recommended to be down zoned from two family to single family. Those areas contain a
number of legal conforming two family uses that staff would like to keep as conforming. Also
included are changes to the review processes that would have ended some of the CUP and PD
reviews at the Plan Commission rather than moving on to the Common Council.
ANALYSIS
A - Poberezny Road & W. Ripple Avenue:
This 80 acre area was changed from SMU-PD
Suburban Mixed Use with Planned
Development Overlay to UI -PD Urban
Industrial with Planned Development Overlay
to mirror the existing M-1 Light Industrial
District with Planned Development Overlay
and to be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
B - Algoma Boulevard & Wisconsin Street
Area:
This 11.37 acre area was changed from TR -10
Two Flat Residential -10 to MR -36 Multi -
Family Residential - 36 to better reflect the
existing residential land uses and mirror the
current R-5 Multiple Dwelling District.
C - New Water Tower Site:
This 0.77 acre area was changed from UMU-
PD Urban Mixed Use with Planned
Development Overlay to Institutional with
Planned Development Overlay due to a recent
land division for construction of the new
water tower within the Marion Road/Pearl
Avenue Redevelopment Area. The
Institutional Zone District is intended for
properties used for governmental buildings
and structures as well as other exempt entities.
ti
g
B - Algoma Boulevard & Wisconsin Street
Area:
This 11.37 acre area was changed from TR -10
Two Flat Residential -10 to MR -36 Multi -
Family Residential - 36 to better reflect the
existing residential land uses and mirror the
current R-5 Multiple Dwelling District.
C - New Water Tower Site:
This 0.77 acre area was changed from UMU-
PD Urban Mixed Use with Planned
Development Overlay to Institutional with
Planned Development Overlay due to a recent
land division for construction of the new
water tower within the Marion Road/Pearl
Avenue Redevelopment Area. The
Institutional Zone District is intended for
properties used for governmental buildings
and structures as well as other exempt entities.
1-11
D Jill
R -L
-:VINE AVE
X14
a M SR -6 PROSPECT AVE
1
Changed from
,j
F
A C
S e _
>y �
D - North Main Street Storm Sewer Basin
Area:
b hT
This 0.46 acre area was changed from MR -20
Multi -Family Residential - 20 to Institutional
due to a recent land division for construction
of a storm sewer connection between recently
constructed City storm water detention basins.
The Institutional Zone District is intended for
properties used for governmental buildings
and structures as well as other exempt entities.
E - UWO Parking Lot — Scott Avenue:
This 0.61 acre site was changed from C
Campus to I Institutional District. This area
was missed during mapping review as the C
District was removed from the final version of
the proposed ordinance text. The area is used
for a parking lot for the University of
Wisconsin Oshkosh and the Institutional
Zoning is the most appropriate district as it
matches the rest of the university campus
area. The Institutional Zone District is
intended for properties used for governmental
buildings and structures as well as other
exempt entities.
Changed from
CfoI
YERN XE
IRJOBERGH AVE
F - Vacated Knapp Street - EAA
This 0.60 acre site was changed from C Campus to I
Institutional District. This area was missed during
mapping review as the C District was removed from
the final version of the proposed ordinance text. The
undeveloped land is part of vacated Knapp Street
and is now owned by the Experimental Aircraft
Association. The Institutional Zone District is
intended for properties used for governmental
buildings and structures as well as other exempt
entities.
G - 225 Idaho Street:
This 0.54 acre site was changed from NMU
Neighborhood Mixed Use to SR -5 Single Family
Residential - 5. This request was made by the
property owner who approached the City to rezone
the property from its current C-2 General
Commercial Zone District. The property contains a
single family home, a prohibited use in the C-2
District. The formerly proposed NMU District would
have allowed the single family use by -right, however,
the property is currently on the market and the
owner had fears that a potential buyer would have
difficulty securing financing with the NMU
designation.
Urban
SR -3
H — Buckstaff Site —1212 S. Main Street
This 8.05 site was changed from HI Heavy
Industrial to UMU Urban Mixed Use.
I — E. Packer Avenue & Harrison Street
This 6.35 acre site was changed from HI Heavy
Industrial to UI Urban Industrial which better suits
the smaller parcel sizes and less -intensive uses.
Zoning Ordinance Text Changes
Changes to Permitted Uses in SR -5 and SR -9 Zoning District
The SR -5 and SR -9 zoning districts are generally replacing the R-2 zoning district in central city
neighborhoods. These areas while predominantly being in single family usage do contain large
numbers of two family dwellings. Two family dwellings on lots of record with 60 feet or more
in width and 7,200 square feet in area are currently conforming uses in the R-2 zoning district.
Two family uses on lots of record with less than 60 feet of lot width and 7,200 square feet are
nonconforming uses. As a nonconforming use if that use is destroyed or removed, the lot then
can only be used for a single family use. Of concern is moving a number of currently
"conforming" two family uses to that of "nonconforming' status. Staff feels it is still in the best
interests of the community and for the stability of the single family neighborhood to implement
the zone change but wants to balance that by not creating a number of new nonconforming
uses. As such staff is proposing to add as a permitted use in the SR -5 and SR -9 zoning districts
existing two family uses on existing lots of record with 60 or more feet in width and 7,200
square feet of lot area.
In order to deal with the existing nonconforming uses, staff is requesting to permit those
through conditional use permit and thus each situation could be reviewed on a case by case
basis to determine whether the use is reasonable for the site.
Suggested Zone Change
SR -5 30-38 (B) (9) & SR -9 30-39 (B) (9)
Add the following language under Principal Uses Permitted by Right.
(9) Existing conforming two family uses on existing lots of record with 60 feet or more of lot
width and 7,200 square feet of lot area.
Add the following language under Principal Uses Permitted as Conditional Use.
SR -5 30-38 (C) (10) & SR -9 (C)(10)
(10) Existing conforming two family uses on lots of record with less than 60 feet of width or
7,200 square feet.
With respect to limiting some items to just Plan Commission review and ending items at the
Council
Adjust Figure 30-360 on page 488
3rd row down on chart labeled "Conditional Use Permit" and remove "A" (A=Final Action)
from Plan Commission authority and remove "Appeal Only" under Common Council and
place "RE" (Review and Evaluate) and "A" Final Action
81h row down under "Group and Large Development" remove "A" from and remove "A"
(A=Final Action) from Plan Commission authority and remove "Appeal Only" under Common
Council and place "RE" (Review and Evaluate) and "A" Final Action.
Pages 500-502
30-382 (H) Review and Action by the Plan Commission
Change the paragraph to remove final action from Plan Commission purview to read
30-382 (H) (2) The Plan Commission may take €irial action on the application at
the time of its initial meeting or may continue the proceedings. The Plan Commission may
recommend appreve the conditional use with modifications and/or conditions or may
recommend denial deny�of the proposed conditional use. Said final action shall be followed by
a written report which may include a formal finding of facts developed and approved by the
Plan Commission concerning the request. Said report shall be forwarded to the Common
Council for its review and action on the proposed conditional use.
30-382 (H) (3) If the Plan Commission wishes to approve recommend significant changes in the
proposed conditional use.......
30-382 (I) Limited Effect of Approval. A ruling by the Plan COHIRnission Common Council
finding a particular land use....... Also move this section to 30-382 (6) and label as 30-382
(6)(3)
Eliminate Sections 30-382 (J) and (K)
30-382(6)(1) Within 60 days after the filing of the appeal the Common Council shall make its
findings and take final action (by resolution).
Page 514
Figure 30-386 Process for Special Area Design Review
Add a no. 7. Additional row titled "Review and Action by Common Council" along with No
Maybe Yes
Page 516
30-386(3) Project Review
End of first sentence add ....Plan Commission and Common Council.
The Plan Commission shall serve as the final ai^^r-etion r; review body y review and
recommend on aesthetics, building design......
Page 519
Figure 30-387 Procedure for Planned Development Review
51h box down change "City" to Common Council Review
61h box dowiYunder Specific Implementation Plan add Plan Commission and Common Council
Review
Page 526
30 (6) Criteria for Approval: In its review and Mien recommendation to the Common Council
for a Planned Development District......
University Transition Overlay (UTO) District
Staff has developed 8 different UTO boundary alternatives based on concerns that have been
raised by the Historic Jackson Drive Neighborhood Association (tDNA) over the boundaries of
the proposed overlay extending to Jackson Street on the east and New York Avenue on the
north. Some in the tDNA are concerned that that the current boundaries will impact the status
of the Irving Church Historic District. The short answer is that it shouldn't; the UTO is simply a
density bonus that permits up to 5 unrelated individuals in a dwelling unit. The current UTO
boundary was drawn recognizing that the neighborhood has become majority rental and trying
to continue to encourage that use in the UTO area and attempting to discourage the movement
of student oriented rentals into the more owner occupied neighborhoods to the north and east
by reducing unrelated individuals to 3 permitted by right elsewhere.
The current UTO boundaries contain about 90% rental population. However, there are pockets
of owner occupied in the current UTO boundaries. There is also a national historic district
(Irving Church) near the south. Of the 9 alternatives staff has developed Option 5 would be the
option staff recommends aside from the current UTO boundary proposal. Option 5 backs the
boundary off of Jackson Street and New York Avenue and retains some of the more owner
occupied parts of the neighborhood. The one concern staff has with any of the alternatives is
the transition that is left between the UTO, which could allow up to 5 residents and the abutting
areas where 3 will be permitted by right. Four individuals could be permitted through the
Ordinance's new Roommate Living Arrangement provisions. Alternatively, a new overlay
zone could also be developed to address the concern.
Staff is requesting Plan Commission recommend a UTO boundary alternative or to recommend
the boundaries as currently proposed.
RECOMMENDATIONS/CONDITIONS
Staff is recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance and Map revisions as discussed.
The Plan Commission approved of the text changes and a portion of the miscellaneous
map revisions as requested with the exception of two of the proposed map revisions
and the determination of the UTO boundary. The following is the Plan Commission
discussion on this item.
Mr. Burich stated that the new zoning map has not yet been adopted and that staff was
proposing to make some changes to it and was seeking comment and input from the
Commission. He further stated that there were some text changes in addition to the map
revisions and that the boundaries of the University Transition Overlay District (UTO) have
some concerns raised by the Historic Jackson Drive Neighborhood Association. Due to these
concerns staff has developed 8 to 9 different alternatives for the boundaries for the Commission
to consider.
Mr. Nau presented the map revisions which were as follows:
A. Poberezny Rd. & W. Ripple Av.-change from SMU-PD to UI -PD to better reflect the
City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
B. Algoma Blvd. & Wisconsin St. -change from TR -10 to MR -36 to better reflect the current
zoning and land use.
C. New Water Tower Site -change from UMU-PD to I -PD which is the correct zoning
designation for government structures.
D. N. Main St. Storm Sewer Basin Area -change from MR -20 to I which is the correct zoning
designation for government structures.
E. UWO Parking Lot -Scott Av.-change from C Campus to I as this classification better fits
the campus area where it is located.
F. Vacated Knapp St. -change from C Campus to I as it is owned by the EAA and this
would be a more appropriate zoning designation.
G. 225 Idaho St. -change from NMU to SR -5 as this request was made by the property
owner who had concerns with a potential buyer for the single family home on the site
having difficulty securing financing due to its zoning designation.
Ms. Propp questioned what the adjacent property is zoned.
Mr. Nau responded that it was SR -9 which allows for more density and this is a larger parcel in
size and the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Borsuk inquired what the current use was of the site.
Mr. Nau indicated that it was a single family home and adjacent to the Parks Department.
H. Buckstaff Site -1212 S. Main St. -change from HI to UMU-PD as the site is in the process
of being demolished and adding the planned development overlay to the site would be
beneficial for future development purposes.
Mr. Borsuk questioned how this zone change would affect adjacent sites and if it would create
any liability on these properties.
Mr. Burich discussed the front yard setback and that there was no transitional yard setback with
the placement of the street between the parcels. He further explained that the site was not
adjacent to residential sites and would not result in any higher level of setback and was
addressed within the code. He further discussed the conforming structures that were adjacent
to the site.
Mr. Borsuk stated that there was vacant land near this site and he does not want to impede the
viability of operations for the businesses adjacent to this site and questioned if there was some
urgency to change the zoning classification of the Buckstaff property.
Mr. Burich stated that the city was working towards preparing the site for future development
and the proposed zoning would be appropriate for this site as community plans do not include
industrial use of this property.
Mr. Borsuk reiterated that he did not want to negatively impact the use of the parcels adjacent
to this site by the proposed zone change.
Mr. Burich responded that staff can further research this change and bring it back to the
Commission at the next meeting.
I. E. Packer Av. & Harrison St. -change from HI to UI which better suits the smaller parcels
and less intensive uses.
Mr. Borsuk stated that there were heavy industrial uses on this site and adjacent properties and
he would not support this revision.
Mr. Burich indicated that there is auto sales proposed for this site which would not be
permitted in a HI zoning district and the other uses were not that intense to require that
classification.
Mr. Borsuk stated that Oshkosh Corporation is located in this area.
Mr. Burich responded that the city is responding to a request by a party to establish auto sales
in this area and is trying to avoid spot zoning a property to allow this use as it would not be
allowed in the HI zoning district. He further stated that there were no heavy industrial uses on
any of those parcels.
Ms. Propp stated that the UI zoning designation would affect the old Metzler Auto building
which was being utilized by Oshkosh Corporation and storage unit facilities which both should
not require a heavy industrial zoning designation.
Mr. Burich indicated that the HI zoning district has more setback requirements and discussed
the UI zoning district and it requirements. He further discussed that the HI zoning district was
for the purpose of manufacturing and industrial uses which are not compatible with the
commercial and other less intense uses as well as the fact that this area is adjacent to residential
uses to the south.
Mr. Nau presented a few additional map revisions that were added after the preparation of staff
reports. The first was 2508 Shorewood Drive which was the recently approved Olsen
annexation which was annexed with a zoning designation of R-1 and was proposed to be
changed to SR-5-LRO which is just a cleanup revision to make the property compatible with the
adjacent uses. The next revision was for the Mercury Marine site which is proposed to be
changed from UMU to UI as well as the Lamico site as both properties were previously zoned
M-2 and this revised zoning designation would be more appropriate to fit the land use.
Mr. Burich added that the draft map was compared to the Comprehensive Plan and several of
the proposed revisions were to adjust the zoning designation to match the current land use of
the property.
Mr. Nau continued with the Axletech property which is proposed to be revised from RFMU to
UI to reflect its current use.
Mr. Fojtik questioned how this would affect the property if it changed hands in the future.
Mr. Burich responded this zoning designation would allow for setbacks and other issues if the
site was redeveloped.
Mr. Nau then discussed a revision for Oaklawn School which is to change the two additional
lots acquired by the school from SMU to I -PD to make it consistent with the rest of the adjacent
parcel. He then presented the next revision which was for the Zink delayed attachment which
will be effective in December of 2016 and was proposed to be changed from R-1 to SR -5.
Mr. Fojtik commented that it appeared that at least one Commission member desired to pull out
a few of these proposed revisions for further consideration.
Mr. Borsuk responded affirmatively.
It was determined that revisions A through G were acceptable to the Commission and that Mr.
Borsuk would like to further examine revisions H and I.
Ms. Propp questioned if the remaining map revisions were acceptable.
Bernard Pitz, 617 W. Irving Avenue, discussed his parcels on Church Avenue and Wisconsin
Street and that they were down zoned previously and he has buildings with 2, 3 and 4 units
along with a carpenter shop and he wants them all zoned multi -family.
Mr. Burich responded that this issue was discussed previously and his request makes sense in
this case and was addressed in the map revisions.
Mr. Pitz stated that he has other parcels that he would like to see changed.
Mr. Fojtik left at 4:42 pm.
Motion by Vajgrt to approve the miscellaneous changes to the update to the City of Oshkosh
Zoning Map zvith the exception of revisions H & 1.
Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 6-0.
Mr. Burich discussed the University Transition Overlay boundaries (UTO) and its purpose
which was to promote density within this area and prevent its extension out further from the
University than it is already. He explained that staff set the boundaries based on the number of
owner occupied properties and rental units in the area. He reviewed the original proposed
boundaries and the nine alternative options created for consideration due to concerns raised as
there is a historic district in this area. He explained each alternative option and the theory
behind it.
Mr. Borsuk questioned how removing the historic district would affect the boundaries and what
protection there would be for this area if removed.
Mr. Burich explained that there was concern with the district being within the UTO although
the density bonus is the only difference. The requirements within the UTO are for five parking
stalls being provided if necessary and Ether requirements pertaining to the rental housing.
Mr. Borsuk inquired where the real protection was for the district.
Mr. Burich responded that the city has a weaker historic preservation ordinance but does have a
Neo Traditional Development Overlay District that could address such issues.
Mr. Borsuk commented that the historic district could be changed to this district to provide
more protection to the historic homes without changing the UTO boundaries.
Mr. Burich replied that this would be an alternative or to back off the boundaries of the UTO to
not include this area. If the boundaries would be moved back we would need to look at the
creation of a new zoning designation to have a hybrid area in between as a transition area.
Ms. Propp requested that the impact of the UTO be summarized to make it clearer.
Mr. Burich explained that the properties within the UTO area could potentially have up to 5
unrelated individuals with appropriate parking facilities. In other areas, 3 unrelated
individuals are allowed per household in single family districts and also discussed functional
families and how they are accounted for in the new ordinance.
Ms. Propp questioned if 4 unrelated individuals are allowed with the UTO without the parking
provisions or other standards.
Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that this condition is going to be difficult to
verify.
Ms. Propp then questioned if large apartment buildings were allowed in the UTO.
Mr. Burich replied that they should be conforming uses but they must provide adequate
parking to serve the units.
Mr. Hinz stated that the historic district option (#9) excluded some parcels that were included
on most of the rest of the options (#2, 5, 6 & 7) and questioned why it was not included on this
one as there is only one owner occupied parcel.
Mr. Burich indicated that staff was trying to place the overlay down the middle of streets rather
than placing it in the middle of a block.
Shirley Mattox, 1313 Jackson Street, stated that Jackson Street neighbors formed the Historic
Jackson Drive Neighborhood Association recently and that she has lived at her residence for 30
years. She discussed the quality of homes in their neighborhood and that the association
brought a petition to the Common Council three weeks ago regarding the placement of the UTO
boundary on Jackson Street. She felt this area should be preserved as it was a gateway to the
city and discussed the historic history of the area. She also discussed the historic district which
contains 147 homes and the architectural styles of the structures. She further discussed the
purpose of the neighborhood association and the importance of homeownership as well as the
importance of park space in neighborhoods. She felt that option #9 would maintain most of the
area and continued to discuss the importance of historic homes in the community. She also
discussed the young professionals who like to live in the downtown area and their potential to
move into these homes in the future. She continued discussion with the number of students
attending UW -O and that the guidance which she felt was better when students live within the
dormitory facilities. She discussed the number of rental properties in the city and felt that we
should be conservative with the boundaries of the UTO. She talked about the homeowners who
still lived in the area and felt that this portion of the city should be reclaimed as owner occupied
homes rather than rental properties. She discussed studies she had worked on in other
communities with student housing and how some of these communities have cut back on
student housing. She stated that she placed the maps on the neighborhood's website and
would like to see the boundary for the UTO pulled back to Wisconsin Street.
Ms. Propp inquired what alternative options for the UTO were acceptable to her and the
neighborhood association.
Ms. Mattox responded that either #8 or #9 or possibly a combination of #7 & #8.
Mr. Burich indicated that #9 was the one that she had indicated was favored which brought the
boundary back to Wisconsin Street.
Ms. Mattox stated that she was concerned with the single family homes in the neighborhood.
Mr. Cummings left at 5:15 pm.
Ms. Propp stated that there were too many alternatives to choose from.
Mr. Hinz commented that he feels that Ms. Mattox has a point and that the city should try to
contain this area and was in favor of alternative #9.
Mr. Borsuk stated that this option would remove the historic district and east of Wisconsin
there are only five owner occupied homes.
Ms. Propp asked to clarify that the overlay offers four unrelated individuals by right and the
rest of the city would be three unrelated individuals per unit.
Mr. Burich responded that the provision for the roommate living arrangement could provide up
to four unrelated individuals with a conditional use permit where the UTO would allow for five
unrelated individuals if meeting the required standards without a CUP. Three unrelated
individuals would be allowed in other districts throughout the city and four with a conditional
use permit or within the UTO without a CUP.
Ms. Propp then questioned what the advantage or disadvantage would be of starting out small
with the UTO boundary.
Mr. Burich indicated that there was no disadvantage to it as it can be changed and discussed the
reasoning for using a major collector _street to establish the boundary. He further explained that
between Wright Street and Jackson Street four unrelated individuals would be allowed by
nonconforming provisions and the purpose of the UTO boundary was to promote density in
this area near campus to prevent the spread of rental housing further into other community
areas.
Mr. Kiefer questioned if the historic district would be restricted to three individuals.
Mr. Burich responded that it would be three except for the existing uses that already have four
individuals. Promoting the density in this area would hopefully reduce this trend in other
areas.
Ms. Propp discussed the conforming and nonconforming issues and that this concept will be
hard to deal with and enforce and questioned if the new landlord ordinance recently adopted
would tell the city how many individuals are in rental housing units.
Mr. Burich responded negatively and agreed that it was a difficult situation as far as
enforcement however all communities with a University campus have to deal with this issue.
Mr. Hinz discussed the option of keeping the UTO boundary smaller to start with as it could be
expanded at a later date.
Mr. Burich stated that the UTO district could be scrapped completely and it could just be
established city wide that three individuals only would be allowed if the Commission desired.
Mr. Borsuk commented that Jackson Street and New York Avenue would serve as a fire wall
and questioned how we could make the fire wall as strong as possible and questioned if the
Commission needed to make this decision tonight.
Mr. Burich reiterated that the UTO boundary did not need to be mapped at all or it could be
brought back to the next meeting.
Ms. Propp stated that she felt the number of options should be reduced.
Mr. Burich again stated that we can create the district without mapping it at this time if no
consensus could be reached on the appropriate area for the boundary.
Mr. Borsuk commented that what happens east of the dividing line is most important and that
he felt we should look at Wisconsin Street.
Mr. Burich stated that he needed to know if more information was needed if the Commission
wanted to delay the decision until the next meeting.
Mr. Vajgrt commented that he preferred option #9 although there are other options to be
considered.
Mr. Kiefer suggested that we could come back to it with Wisconsin Street being included in the
UTO and include the parcels by the Jackson Field area and discussed the number of
nonconforming properties that would exist if the boundary was moved to Wisconsin Street. He
felt we need to look at the number of owner occupied units on Wisconsin Street and need to
know more about owner occupied parcels both east and west of Wisconsin Street.
Motion by Vajgrt to consider two options for moving the boundary to Wisconsin Street and
Wright Street as depicted on option #9 with further review at the next meeting.
Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 5-0.
The Commission requested that the options be summarized regarding the UTO for the next
meeting and some information regarding the Neo Traditional Development Overlay District
and if it should be applied to the historic district.
Mr. Burich stated that he would want further input from the neighborhood regarding applying
the overlay district to the historic district as it is very intense as far as architectural standards.
Mr. Burich explained the text changes relating to the R-2 districts being replaced with the SR
districts and that these areas contain a large number of two family dwellings and we do not
want to create a lot of nonconforming uses as such dwellings as duplexes would become
nonconforming uses if the zoning district changed under the new ordinance. He displayed
maps showing the existing nonconforming uses and explained that two family uses on lots with
under 60 feet in width and 7,200 square feet in area are nonconforming uses. The addition of a
text change to add that existing conforming two family uses on existing lots with 60 feet or
more of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area would be permitted by right in the SR -5 and
SR -9 zoning districts would not create a number of new nonconforming uses. To address
existing nonconforming uses on lots that do not meet the necessary size requirements, language
is proposed to be added to allow two family uses on these lots with approval of a conditional
use permit. As these existing nonconforming uses already exist it would give the city the ability
to permit the use through the conditional use process as they are nonconforming under the
current ordinance and the provisions will allow a path for it to become a conforming use with a
conditional use permit.
Mr. Kiefer asked if this issue would only come into play if the property owner would sell the
property or do other improvements and then would be required to file for a conditional use
permit.
Mr. Burich responded affirmatively.
Mr. Kiefer then inquired if the property owner left the use as is they would not have to do
anything.
Mr. Burich again responded affirmatively and stated that the big issue with nonconforming
uses is when the property owner would sell the property or have to rebuild the structure.
Mr. Borsuk commented that with the conditional use process some uses that are not appropriate
would no longer be allowed to continue.
Mr. Burich indicated that it would depend on the results of the conditional use permit review.
He further explained that the remaining text changes relate to some items ending at the Plan
Commission level and that the Common Council had concerns with items not moving forward
for their review. The proposed text changes would revert back to the Plan Commission making
a recommendation and the Common Council having final approval.
Bernard Pitz stated that he has rental property located at the corner of Parkway Avenue and
Monroe Street that is a nonconforming use as it is a smaller lot and that the building will be
worthless if these text changes are approved. He felt that by making the building a conforming
use would help his situation.
Mr. Burich responded that it is currently an existing and nonconforming use and that Mr. Pitz
would need to obtain a conditional use permit for that property as it would not fall into any
allowed nonconforming use as it currently exists.
Ms. Propp stated that if the property would require a conditional use permit, what would be
the result if the permit was denied.
Mr. Burich responded that the structure would only be allowed to be used for a single family
unit.
Mr. Pitz stated that it currently has three units and that there was no sense to him paying his
property taxes and street reconstruction bills for this lot if he was only going to be allowed one
unit as it had no value as a single family home.
Mr. Burich reiterated that it is currently a nonconforming use.
Mr. Pitz continued his discussion regarding the city making changes to ordinances that affect
property owners without informing people of their consequences. He also discussed a number
of other properties he owns in the city and how they will be affected by the change in the
zoning ordinance.
Mr. Burich indicated that the city provided for a blanket conforming status to all
nonconforming lots and structures for setbacks and Mr. Pitz could take some of his requests to
the Board of Appeals and request a variance to resolve issues such as reduced setbacks on
smaller lots.
Motion by Borsuk to approve the miscellaneous text changes to the update to the City of Oshkosh
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 30.
Seconded by Vajgrt.
Mr. Borsuk commented that he was comfortable with the conditional use permit approval
process to allow people to use their property as they see fit.
Motion carried 5-0.
ITEM: UPDATE TO CITY OF OSHKOSH ZONING MAP (MISCELLANEOUS
CHANGES)
Plan Commission meeting of December 6, 2016.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2016, the City of Oshkosh Plan Commission reviewed and recommended
approval of a new draft zoning map coinciding with the update/rewrite of the 1997 Zoning
Ordinance. On November 15, 2016, staff presented 15 changes to the proposed zoning map,
two of which the Plan Commission referred back to staff for further analysis.
The Plan Commission also evaluated nine options for the University Transition Overlay
boundary. After review, the Plan Commission requested staff to resubmit Option 9 and a
variation of Option 9, which scales back the eastern extent of the Overlay District from Wright
Street to Wisconsin Street.
ANALYSIS
A — Buckstaff Site —1212 S. Main Street
W IOTH AVE T —f 10TH AVE-- I RMU•RFO
NI.
I `
Ir
Changed from
UMU-PD :Ww'
10 CMU -PD z
p
–W 11TH AVE - EI ITH AVE
M/ D• FO
TTi•To
CMr ,
In
Z
W 12TH AVE
3
/
. R"ERFRONT
OVERLAY
'R
U•PD-RFD
•W SOUTH PARK AVE ESOUTFfPA�Y
T Z
.1
TR•10.
. W 14TH AVE --
New_Zoning_Map HI
Abbrevlall - RML-PD•RFO
JDor�lUillt�p�tiy
a1u1u.,d zolltll!)
- IlIS:. i IUiII Jh��i
--
- CMU - RMU-RFO
- CMU -PO - TR -10
RMU = RNen'ronl Mdetl-Ute
Oshkosh
GAU = Central MbcetlUse
HI=Heavy "whlal
-
TR•10 = T— Flat Resdentlal
PD=Pbnnetl De Woprnent Overby
.-
RFO=Ri-f—t Overlay
-, -
This 8.05 site was originally changed
from HI Heavy Industrial to UMU-PD
Urban Mixed Use with a Planned
Development Overlay. Concerns were
raised by Plan Commission that a
change from an Industrial District to a
Commercial District would negatively
impact existing industrial uses north
and south of the site. Staff evaluated
this concern and determined that the
properties/zone district boundaries are
separated by public right-of-way,
therefore the existing industrial uses
will not be affected due to this
separation. In addition, staff is of the
opinion the best future use for the site
and general area east of S. Main Street
is a mix of commercial and/or higher -
density residential developments.
Staff also reevaluated if the proposed UMU Urban Mixed Use District was the most appropriate
zone district for these properties. The west side of the S. Main Street corridor is proposed to be
zoned CMU -PD, Central Mixed Use with a Planned Development Overlay. Staff feels
expanding the CMU -PD District onto the Buckstaff properties is logical, avoids a "spot zone"
and offers benefits such as smaller setbacks and greater impervious coverage versus the UMU
district. This allows for greater design potential for when the site is redeveloped. Therefore,
staff is recommending classifying this site with a CMU -PD District.
B — E. Packer Avenue & Harrison Street
This 6.35 acre site was changed from HI
Heavy Industrial to UI Urban Industrial
which better suits the smaller parcel
sizes and less -intensive uses. Plan
Commission asked staff if the site was
better suited for the originally proposed
HI District.
Staff examined the existing land uses
and parcel anatomy of the six affected
parcels (see table) and found that one
existing use and one proposed use are
prohibited in the HI District. Also, two
different parcels do not meet minimum
parcel standards in regard to area (1
acre). The proposed UI District
allows all of the existing and
proposed uses by -right, and all of
the parcels meet minimum size
standards. Therefore, staff is
recommending the originally
proposed change to UI Urban
Industrial District.
Analysis of E. Packer Ave. & Harrison St. Zone Change
Changed from ,
Meets
Minimum Lot
Standards
Hl to UI
Use
UI
HI
UI
HI
139 E Packer Ave.
Contractor Yard, Towing, Auto Repair
YES
i
a
YES
NO
111
Contractor Shop
YES
YES
YES
NO
�E
Mini -warehousing (Personal Storage)
YES
NO
YES
YES
2705 Harrison St.
Oshkosh Corp. - Vehicle Servicing
YES
YES
YES
YES
j:
Vacant
HI
i` ¢
t
YES
2527 Harrison St.
Proposed Auto Sales/Service
�
NO
1 �
YES
SR -3 t
3
New -Zoning -Map se -2
YropiwJ'anln�
Abbreviali Ss -3
'!! �:Fuw of?.7ua. W A,14. 41l•.uliaau
31.
Ul
Oshkosh
UI • Urban IndusMal
..
HI= Heovy hauslrlol
SR -2 - Sl gle FamVV Resloentral- 2
..
SR -3 -single FomVy=We H.-3
This 6.35 acre site was changed from HI
Heavy Industrial to UI Urban Industrial
which better suits the smaller parcel
sizes and less -intensive uses. Plan
Commission asked staff if the site was
better suited for the originally proposed
HI District.
Staff examined the existing land uses
and parcel anatomy of the six affected
parcels (see table) and found that one
existing use and one proposed use are
prohibited in the HI District. Also, two
different parcels do not meet minimum
parcel standards in regard to area (1
acre). The proposed UI District
allows all of the existing and
proposed uses by -right, and all of
the parcels meet minimum size
standards. Therefore, staff is
recommending the originally
proposed change to UI Urban
Industrial District.
Analysis of E. Packer Ave. & Harrison St. Zone Change
Use
Permitted
Meets
Minimum Lot
Standards
Address
Use
UI
HI
UI
HI
139 E Packer Ave.
Contractor Yard, Towing, Auto Repair
YES
YES
YES
NO
155 E Packer Ave.
Contractor Shop
YES
YES
YES
NO
225 E Packer Ave.
Mini -warehousing (Personal Storage)
YES
NO
YES
YES
2705 Harrison St.
Oshkosh Corp. - Vehicle Servicing
YES
YES
YES
YES
15-1960-0211 Harrison St.
Vacant
--
--
YES
YES
2527 Harrison St.
Proposed Auto Sales/Service
YES
NO
YES
YES
Item- Zoning Map Revisions
C — W. 201h Ave to W. 23rd Ave. from Minnesota St. to Montana St.
!
1
s (((WWWJJJ
r
r• [� 1 R-8
'
[
; Changed from
HI to U1
-- - —
0TH AVE SR- PD
I
f
{
} 1 {
1A
i O',
I
�. -
{
1
i
[
e
1
SR-
N 24THAVE
hl
New Zon(ng_Map
SR -9
Iroyn��d reNny
W. Sqh Ave.1. W 9iN Aw ham
Abbrevfafi
SR-9PD
MIM�fO1C 3Lb ManlaM tl.
—.
® HI UI
I
-UMU
lir=%.::.•„' �,. 4
I = IrG11NtiDn01
UMU = Urban Mlxetl-Uze
MI = Meovy htlustr'wl
UI = Urban b dwfflal
SR-9=Sr>gle FDrNty RezWenttal-9
PD= Pgnnea DevNapmeM Overby
-
University Transition Overlay (UTO) District
This 8.89 acre area was changed from
HI Heavy Industrial to UI Urban
Industrial which better suits the smaller
parcel sizes and less -intensive uses.
Based on the discussion at the November 15th Plan Commission meeting staff has narrowed
down the UTO boundary alternatives to labeled Options 9 and 10 (see attached maps). Both
options move the boundary of the proposed UTO District off of Jackson Street on the east and
New York Avenue on the north as well as carving out the Irving/Church Historical district in
the southern area.
Option 9 generally pulls the eastern boundary back to Wright Street in addition to pulling it
back to Vine Street on the north and carving out the historic district on the south. This removes
257 properties (181 Rental, 76 Owner -Occupied) from the original boundary.
Option 10 pulls the eastern boundary west to Wisconsin Street, which ends up removing 68
parcels 61 of which are rental properties. This removes 332 properties (249 Rental, 83 Owner -
Occupied) from the original boundary.
Staffs preference is to keep as close to the originally proposed UTO boundaries as possible so is
supportive of Option # 9 because it retains more potential properties where up to 5 unrelated
Item- Zoning Map Revisions
individuals can reside in a dwelling unit. As the intent of creating the UTO is to promote
additional density inside a neighborhood already significantly impacted by the student
population, the smaller that area becomes the more pressure that may continue to be added to
the outlying neighborhoods if/as the university grows in enrollment. The UTO coupled with
density reduction to 3 unrelated individuals by right everywhere else is intended to be both a
long and short term solution to a significant neighborhood stabilization issue that hopefully can
contain itself to the general UTO area.
Staff is requesting Plan Commission recommend a UTO boundary alternative or to recommend
the boundaries as currently proposed.
RECOMMENDATIONS/CONDITIONS
Staff is recommending approval of the Map revisions as discussed.
The Plan Commission approved of the map revisions as requested. The following is the Plan
Commissions discussion on this item.
The Plan Commission also evaluated nine options for the University Transition Overlay
boundary. After review, the Plan Commission requested staff to resubmit Option 9 and a
variation of Option 9, which scales back the eastern extent of the Overlay District from Wright
Street to Wisconsin Street.
Mr. Nau presented the first map revision and discussed the Buckstaff property site which was
proposed to be changed from HI to UMU-PD initially. The revised map revision is proposed to
change this zoning classification to CMU -PD which was determined by staff to be in the best
interest of future use of the site and as the properties are separated by public right-of-way, it
should not have any negative impact on existing industrial uses adjacent to this site. The CMU
zoning district has lesser setback requirements and the planned development overlay will
provide oversight of any future development of the property.
Mr. Burich further discussed the redevelopment of the Buckstaff site and the benefits of the
planned development overlay.
Mr. Nau presented the second map revision which was for properties located at E. Packer
Avenue and Harrison Street which was proposed to be changed from HI to UI. After further
review of the uses of these properties, two were found to be prohibited in the HI district and
two others were found that do not meet the minimum parcel standards in regard to area. Staff
was therefore recommending the originally proposed UI zoning district for this area.
Item- Zoning Map Revisions
Mr. Nau presented a third map revision for properties located at W. 201h Avenue and W. 23rd
Avenue from Minnesota Street to Montana Street. This area was proposed to be changed from
HI to UI as that zoning classification better suits the smaller parcel sizes and less intensive uses.
Mr. Nau presented a fourth map revision for the area that was just reviewed for a zone change
at Harrison Street and E. Custer Avenue from M-2 to C-1PD. This revision would change the
new zoning classification for that parcel from UMU to UMU-PD to be consistent with the
zoning on the adjacent parcel that is being redeveloped.
Mr. Borsuk stated that he appreciated the clarification on the map revision for the Buckstaff site
and he spoke with several owners of the properties on Packer Avenue and Harrison Street who
were agreeable to the proposed zone change. He questioned the reason for the revision on W.
20th Avenue and W. 23rd Avenue.
Mr. Burich responded that these parcels were small in size and a vast mixture of uses and the
greater setback requirements in the HI zoning district was not appropriate for this area.
Motion by Vajgrt to approve the miscellaneous changes to the update to the City of Oshkosh
Zoning Map.
Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9-0.
Mr. Burich discussed the previous actions and concerns at the last meeting relative to
establishing the boundaries for the University Transition Overlay (UTO) District. He first
reviewed Option #9 which pulls the eastern boundary back to Wright Street, the north
boundary back to Vine Street and carving out the historic district on the south. This option
would remove 257 properties (181 rentals, 76 owner -occupied) from the original boundary. He
then reviewed Option #10 which pulls the eastern boundary west to Wisconsin Street which
would remove 332 properties (249 rental, 83 owner occupied) from the original boundary and
would also carve out the historic district on the south. He stated that staff supported Option #9
and that this boundary could be adjusted at a later date if desired.
Mr. Thorns questioned what impact these changes of the boundary would have on property
owners in this area.
Mr. Burich responded that the intent of the UTO is to promote additional density inside this
area that is already significantly impacted by student housing and prevent this rental housing
trend from moving out further into other neighborhoods in the community. He explained the
standards for 4 or 5 unrelated individuals residing in a dwelling unit within the UTO and the
definition of functional families and the density reduction to 3 unrelated individuals allowed by
right in other districts. This is intended to protect the owner occupied housing neighborhoods
by allowing a more dense rental population inside the UTO boundary and less outside of this
area. He further explained the allowance for 3 or 4 unrelated individuals being allowed with
the approval of a conditional use permit.
Item- Zoning Map Revisions
Shirley Mattox, 1313 Jackson Street, representing the Historic Jackson Drive Neighborhood
Association, discussed the petition that was presented to the Common Council requesting a
change in the originally proposed boundaries of the UTO which would have extended to
Jackson Street. She discussed the issue with neighbors who appreciated the alternative options
and her research on the student housing matter. She voiced her concerns with the quality of life
in student housing areas and her desire to protect the families that live there. She again
discussed the historic homes in this area and that the community needed to respect the historic
district and maintain the integrity of the homes in that area. She felt that the Landmarks
Commission could reach out to landlords to discuss the situation and continued discussion on
rental housing in Madison and other communities. She also discussed the amount of rental
housing outside of the new proposed boundary and the possibility that in time this could
change back to owner occupied homes.
Mr. Bowen left at 5:40 pm.
Mr. Fojtik inquired if Ms. Mattox had a preference between Option #9 and #10.
Ms. Mattox discussed the green space to the north of the area and that it should be preserved
and that the larger of a buffer that could be established the better.
Motion by Vajgrt to approve the revision to the University Transition Overlay District boundary
to Option #9.
Seconded by Nollenberger.
Mr. Cummings inquired if Option #9 achieves the objectives and goals of the neighborhood
association.
Mr. Burich indicated that both options address this and although staff preferred the boundary
extend out to Jackson Street, pulling it back to Wright Street will be adequate for now.
Mr. Thorns commented that Option #10 was more of a buffer to the neighborhood but may be a
hindrance to accommodate student housing.
Mr. Burich discussed the nonconforming uses for four individuals in a rental unit and the issues
with verifying how many people are housed in any one property. He further discussed the
issue of trying to preserve single-family neighborhoods and that shrinking the area of the UTO
district may diminish what staff is trying to do with the establishment of this zoning district.
Ms. Propp commented that she prefers Option #9 as it is not as dense and the boundary could
be adjusted a later time if deemed appropriate.
Motion carried 8-0.
Item- Zoning Map Revisions
i0l
WE
LEO
6i
Eu
01-2
L4-
ism",
ME A
FT 1L Pro 299
vim
I'M
wig 9MI 8:= EIM
0 pill
10 -
41,
��m